Please read the following,I Posted this under Elections also,if this is perpetrated on us again by Bush&co.just like 911 was and is as well as Iraq,and more unending assortments of HIGH TEASON,WAR CRIMES,MASS MURDER,MORE WARS,etc.,
this will lead (and is leading) to the COMPLETED OVERTHROW of AMERICA!
Please email this,and any other news,anyone here comes across re:All These THREATS,I know I am,and will keep looking for more credible news related to our alltoo glaringly clear reality.
carly101

"... Credible reporting indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process...

"This is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm... But every day we strengthen the security of our nation." (DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, 8 July 2004)

Does this last announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge entail a code red emergency scenario of "closing down the country" (prior to the November elections) as conveyed by Secretary Ridge in a previous statement:

"If we go to [code] Red ... it basically shuts down the country," (22 December 2003, emphasis added)

Homeland Security and the White House no doubt have several "scenarios" in mind to "win" the presidential elections in November.

At the same time, the Bush Administration is also maneuvering cautiously behind the scenes, with a view to embedding formal "guidelines" into federal election procedures, which would allow for the cancellation or postponement of an election in the event of a terror attack.
To reach their objective, the Bush Administration is using the jurisdiction of one of its bogus federal agencies, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) , established in 2003 under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) .

Concurrent with Homeland Security's statement regarding the possibility of a large scale "9/11 type attack", EAC director DeForest B. Soaries , a Bush appointee, has hinted to the need for:

"establishing guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again".

"Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications... Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?... I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country... I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are,! we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table ... The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who's in charge?". (quoted in AP, 8 July 2004, emphasis added)

What is important in this new initiative, is that if these so-called guidelines were to be adopted, the Administration would technically be able to postpone or cancel an election, "with the stroke of a pen", and without resorting to far-reaching emergency procedures and/or martial law.

A temporary postponement might be considered by Republican strategists as a (desperate) propaganda ploy, for swinging votes away from the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Whether these guidelines will be accepted prior to November by the Democrats is, at this stage doubtful.

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is described as a "clearinghouse of voting information and procedures". The statements and news coverage seem to suggest that if guidelines on the postponement or cancellation of elections are to be formulated, they should emanate from the EAC, which has a (bipartisan) mandate under the US Congress to oversee federal voting systems, rather than the DHS.

But the EAC is an "informal arm" of the Department of Homeland Security. Both the DHS and the White House are indelibly behind the proposed "guidelines" initiative, calling the shots from behind the scenes.

EAC Director Reverand DeForest "Buster" Soaries, a former Baptist minister, is a handpicked appointee. He was New Jersey Secretary of State under Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, who is a political crony of Sec. Tom Ridge, going back to their days as GOP governors of the neighboring states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Todd Whitman was appointed by the Bush Admistration to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and has since then worked very closely with Tom Ridge in the domestic war on terror.
The press reports suggest that DeForest "Buster" Soaries took the initiative on his own accord, acting on behalf of a federal governmental body. He has even complained: "that he was rebuffed when he wrote to Ridge seeking to discuss election security, including how to handle rescheduling the election if it were to be disrupted by an attack." (Associated Press, 9 July 2004).

Secretary Tom Ridge has said that he is "against the guidelines." What he does not say is that various procedures have already been carefully worked out by Homeland Security analysts, who have simulated precise red code alert scenarios including situations, implying the cancellation or postponement of elections. (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html ).

Ridge says that "he doesn't agree with all of the conclusions in Soaries' letter, but the department is working on constitutional and security questions, and Soaries will be involved in the process." (AP, 9 July 2004 )

Homeland Security is intent on establishing entrenched procedures under the EAC. The "guidelines" to postpone or suspend the elections could then be presented as a means to "protecting democracy" in the case of a terror attack.

The setting of so-called "guidelines" at the level of an official body, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), would establish a "trigger mechanism" under the jurisdiction of a federal commission.

A code red alert would contribute to activating the guidelines, although the latter could indeed be activated without resort to "the highest" terror alert level.

E-Democracy or Electoral Fraud?

The same Bush sponsored body, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which has hinted to the need for "guidelines" in the case of a terror attack, has also been pushing for the establishment in several states of the Diebold electronic voting system .

Diebold is a black box system which very conveniently does not leave a paper trail. In other words, it does not leave a paper record of the vote. In fact: "all three black box computer manufacturers are Republican-led corporations actively involved in Bush,s re-election campaign."

In June 2004, Diebold Inc, which is backing the Bush campaign, congratulated EAC Chairman DeForest Soaries for assisting Diebold in marketing is E-election system:

We welcome the opportunity to provide input on these important issues and pledge our strong support to the EAC," said Mark G. Radke, director of marketing for Diebold Election Systems, Inc. 'This initiative by Chairman Soaries and the EAC will further increase voter confidence in the election process as election practices and procedures transition to more efficient, accurate technology," said Walden W. O'Dell, chairman and CEO of Diebold, Incorporated, the parent company of Diebold Election Systems."

"he has been a top fund-raiser for the Republican president, but said he intends to lower his political profile and "try to be more sensitive" in light of the national criticism he has faced. ... Because the fund-raising revelations fell closely on the heels of security questions raised about Diebold's machines in a later-questioned Johns Hopkins University study, O'Dell's critics began to suggest that Diebold should not be allowed to be involved in elections. (The Plain Dealer, 16 September 2003),

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of War and Globalization, the Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2004

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca . For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: editor@globalresearch.ca.

I wrote the following. However, based on what I've learned since then, its more likely the attacks will NOT
come until the CHILDREN ARE BACK IN SCHOOL so they can seperate the children from the parents
using FEMA school lockdown rules, already now in effect:

"NO ELECTION IN NOVEMBER IS LIKELY AND WHY Several things are almost a certainty, unless people get really mad about all this and stop it: Here is what logic dictates will happen, based on the publicly admitted motivations of people in office now. There WILL be another attack this year, before November. More than likely in spring or summer because of military logistics."

There is plenty of time, between now and November to perform another orchestrated attack on America. Just one more big event will cause the head shrub to declare martial law. When that happens, even if he's not president-elect he still doesn't need to step down and Congress can just go home or back to the golf course, because military law will rule the USA.

Well, it didn't happen, there was no "pre-election terror events", but thats because it was a toss up weather or not it would help Bush win a second term

You see, if there was a "breach of security", it might mean that Bush's plans had not protected America after all. That is balanced by "the need to have Bush in there at these times" if another terror event happened.

The Bush Election Team was reading the electorate, and it was clear that they wanted to believe they were safe, and that Bush made it so. So no pre-election terror event was staged.

I am a bit angry at Rense for spreading the fears that helped Bush win a second term. It was the best of both worlds for BushCo that Americans would think another attack was imminent, but didn't go off!! Sometimes it is hard for us ordinary protestors not to do "their work for them" in spreading fears and so on. I forgive you.

This is all based on the premise that 9-11 was carried out at the wishes of Bush and freinds. Is that what you also believe? [I do]

_________________"Remember, they cause the problem and then offer the solution"

Fear is one of the most primordial human emotions and therefore lends itself to effective use by propagandists. Human beings can do great and terrible things when motivated by fear. Fear is essentially the survival instinct kicking in: "I'd better watch out because you can harm me." Fear being fundamentally irrational, it is one of the most widely used techniques used by propagandists.

"When a propagandist warns members of [his/her] audience that disaster will result if [it does] not follow a particular course of action, [he/she] is using the fear appeal," observes the Propaganda Critic. "By playing on the audience's deep-seated fears, practitioners of this technique hope to redirect attention away from the merits of a particular proposal and toward steps that can be taken to reduce the fear."

Specific types of fears include xenophobia (fear of foreigners), fear of terrorism, crime, economic hardship, ecological disaster, disease, overpopulation, invasion of privacy, or discrimination. With such a broad spectrum of fear, the propagandizer can pick relevant phobias and incorporate them into his/her messages. The power of this propaganda technique can be multiplied when it is exploited in conjunction with uncertainty and doubt, that is, when information at hand is not sufficient enough to completely rule out the cause of the fear. In order to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt, propagandists exploit general ignorance. Pushed to its extremes, this combination can lead to conspiracy theories.

An example of this technique is the use of the as yet unsubstantiated claim that Iraq posesses weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the US lead invasion of Iraq. [Continued here...]